Nature Communications vs SCIENCE

Nature Communications (Impact Factor 16.6) and SCIENCE (IF 45.8) both publish high-impact research across all scientific disciplines. But they are not alternatives in the same sense. SCIENCE is a top-tier multidisciplinary journal where the majority of papers will be rejected before peer review. Nature Communications is a high-impact OA journal where the bar centers on novelty and rigor rather than world-changing significance.

The journals differ most in selectivity, publishing speed, and editorial philosophy. SCIENCE demands field-shifting work with societal relevance. Nature Communications wants novel findings with solid experimental support, open access delivery, and cross-disciplinary interest.

This comparison is relevant if you have research that could fit multiple venues and need clarity on which journal actually wants it.

Head-to-Head Comparison

The Core Difference in Editorial Strategy

SCIENCE asks one fundamental question: Is this work so significant that it changes the field and merits broad societal attention? The acceptance rate (<7%) and desk rejection rate (~75%) reflect this ruthless filtering.

Nature Communications asks a different question: Is this work novel, well-executed, and interesting to a broad scientific audience? The higher acceptance rate (~20-25%) and lower desk rejection rate (~30%) show a more inclusive model.

This distinction is crucial. A paper rejected by SCIENCE for being "interesting but not field-changing" can be a strong fit for Nature Communications. Conversely, a paper designed for Nature Communications' standards of novelty and rigor may not reach SCIENCE's significance bar. The journals operate on different tiers.

Publication Model and Economics

The most obvious difference: SCIENCE is a prestigious subscription journal (with an open access option you pay for). Nature Communications is fully open access from day one, and the article processing charge (APC) is built into the submission process.

This matters practically. If your funding doesn't cover open access APCs and SCIENCE will let your paper go behind a subscription wall, that's financially simpler. If open access is a mandate (NIH, UKRI, Horizon Europe), Nature Communications' full OA model is cleaner.

The openness also shapes audience. Nature Communications papers are immediately discoverable and readable without paywall friction. SCIENCE papers require institutional access or payment, which affects discoverability for researchers without institutional affiliation. This can actually work in your favor at SCIENCE if the prestige of publication matters more than reach in your field.

Review Timeline and Decision Speed

SCIENCE is faster to first decision: ~14 days median. Nature Communications typically takes 2-3 months. If you face a scooping threat or grant deadline, SCIENCE's speed is decisive.

However, the total time to publication tells a different story. Both journals can require substantial revisions, pushing total timeline to 10-15 months. The first decision speed matters when you're weighing concurrent submissions, but it's not always the bottleneck.

Nature Communications offers a faster acceptance decision once reviews come back because the significance bar is lower - once reviewers confirm the work is novel and solid, acceptance is more likely. SCIENCE reviewers and editors often request major experiments or analyses, creating lengthy revision cycles even after acceptance in principle.

Scope and Selectivity

Both journals publish across all scientific disciplines. But SCIENCE's reputation for field-shifting discoveries means the competition is more intense and the selectivity more brutal. Nature Communications' broader acceptance rate suggests slightly lower selectivity overall, though the review standards for technical quality are rigorous.

In practice, SCIENCE gets first dibs on landmark findings. Papers initially written for SCIENCE often find a home in Nature Communications after desk rejection. The reverse is rare - a Nature Communications paper that crosses the SCIENCE bar tends to have been written with SCIENCE in mind first.

SCIENCE also has a particular advantage in papers with policy implications or societal stakes. The AAAS mission and the journal's history of bridging science and policy mean that work on climate, public health, AI ethics, or other socially consequential topics resonates strongly at SCIENCE. Nature Communications doesn't penalize these topics, but SCIENCE actively favors them.

Data Sharing and Open Science

Nature Communications requires data and code availability for the majority of studies. This is non-negotiable - if your data can't be shared due to privacy, IP, or technical limitations, you'll face rejection or lengthy negotiations.

SCIENCE strongly expects data sharing but has more flexibility for sensitive data (human subject research, proprietary collaborations, etc.). The journal's data-sharing policy is stringent but has more escape valves.

If you have data you absolutely cannot share publicly, SCIENCE might be more workable. If you're designed with open data in mind, Nature Communications aligns with the scientific culture you're participating in.

Audience and Citation Impact

SCIENCE's higher impact factor (45.8 vs 16.6) reflects its position as a prestige outlet where citations accumulate rapidly - in part because of the selectivity that ensures landmark findings, in part because the prestigious journal name drives discoverability.

Nature Communications citations grow more slowly but accumulate over time. A Nature Communications paper in 2024 may have fewer citations by 2026 than a SCIENCE paper from the same year, but by 2030 citation patterns may have evened out. The question is what timeframe matters for your career - immediate prestige or long-term impact.

SCIENCE's readership includes policymakers, journalists, and non-specialist scientists, which drives broader awareness. Nature Communications' readership is primarily other academic researchers. If your paper has policy relevance, SCIENCE's media machinery amplifies it; if it's mainly for the research community, Nature Communications' openness aids discoverability within that community.